Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 58:10 (2017), pp 10681080 doi:10.1111/jcpp.

12721

Phase 2 of CATALISE: a multinational and

multidisciplinary Delphi consensus study of problems
with language development: Terminology
Dorothy V.M. Bishop,1 Margaret J. Snowling,1 Paul A. Thompson,1 Trisha Greenhalgh,2
and the CATALISE-2 consortium
1
Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford, Oxford; 2Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health
Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

Background: Lack of agreement about criteria and terminology for childrens language problems affects access to
services as well as hindering research and practice. We report the second phase of a study using an online Delphi
method to address these issues. In the first phase, we focused on criteria for language disorder. Here we consider
terminology. Methods: The Delphi method is an iterative process in which an initial set of statements is rated by a
panel of experts, who then have the opportunity to view anonymised ratings from other panel members. On this basis
they can either revise their views or make a case for their position. The statements are then revised based on panel
feedback, and again rated by and commented on by the panel. In this study, feedback from a second round was used
to prepare a final set of statements in narrative form. The panel included 57 individuals representing a range of
professions and nationalities. Results: We achieved at least 78% agreement for 19 of 21 statements within two
rounds of ratings. These were collapsed into 12 statements for the final consensus reported here. The term Language
Disorder is recommended to refer to a profile of difficulties that causes functional impairment in everyday life and is
associated with poor prognosis. The term, Developmental Language Disorder (DLD) was endorsed for use when the
language disorder was not associated with a known biomedical aetiology. It was also agreed that (a) presence of risk
factors (neurobiological or environmental) does not preclude a diagnosis of DLD, (b) DLD can co-occur with other
neurodevelopmental disorders (e.g. ADHD) and (c) DLD does not require a mismatch between verbal and nonverbal
ability. Conclusions: This Delphi exercise highlights reasons for disagreements about terminology for language
disorders and proposes standard definitions and nomenclature. Keywords: Developmental language disorder;
specific language impairment; terminology; risk factors; definitions.

version of the Delphi technique (Hasson, Keeney, &

Introduction
Language problems are common in children, with
prevalence estimates ranging from 3% to 7%, depend-
ing on age and definition (Norbury et al., 2016;
Tomblin, Records et al., 1997; Weindrich, Jennen-
Steinmetz, Laucht, Esser, & Schmidt, 2000). In
relation to their severity and prevalence, childrens
language problems receive considerably less research
funding than other conditions such as attention
deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) or autism
spectrum disorder (ASD), with which they frequently
co-occur (Bishop, 2010). The term Specific Language
Impairment (SLI) has been widely used to refer to
children whose language development is not following
the usual course despite typical development in other
areas. However, professionals and lay people alike
appear to be far less familiar with SLI compared with
dyslexia or autism (Kamhi, 2004). Of more concern,
Ebbels (2014) described how use of the term SLI had
become controversial, because it seemed not to reflect
clinical realities and excluded many children from
services.
Bishop, Snowling, Thompson, Greenhalgh and
The CATALISE Consortium (2016) used an online
Conflict of interest statement: No conflicts declared.
McKenna, 2000) with the aim of achieving consensus
on these issues. Because of the complexity of the
subject matter, we divided the task into two phases:
the first, described by Bishop et al. (2016) focused
on criteria for identifying significant language prob-
lems in children. Here we describe the second phase,
where the same panel focused on the issue of
terminology for childrens language problems. Here
we describe this second phase.
Materials and methods
Ethics approval
This research was approved by The Medical Sciences Interdis-
ciplinary Research Ethics Committee, University of Oxford
(approval number: MS-IDREC-C1-2015-061). Panel members
gave written consent for their ratings to be used to derive a
consensus statement.
Delphi panel
We approached the same panel members who had formed part
of the CATALISE consortium for our previous Delphi on
criteria. As detailed by Bishop et al. (2016), we restricted
consideration to English-speaking countries, and there was a
predominance of speech-language therapists/pathologists
(SLT/Ps). Of the original panel, two declined to take part in

2017 The Authors. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Association for Child and
Adolescent Mental Health.
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any
medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
doi:10.1111/jcpp.12721 Delphi consensus on terminology for language problems 1069

Table 1 Professional group and countrya of panel members into account specific comments provided by the panel, and to
reconsider the two problematic items. Some statements with
Profession N and Country Gender good agreement were consolidated to give a single longer
statement (see Appendix S3), giving a total of 13 statements. A
Speech-Language 31 (15 UK, 6 USA, 3 NZ, 6 M, 25 F draft of the current paper, including finalised statements in the
Therapist/Pathologist 3 Ire, 1 Can, 3 Aus) Results section, was circulated for comments and approval by
Joint SLT/SLP 7 (3 Can, 2 Aus, 2 UK) 1 M, 6 F the panel. Further revisions were made to address points
and Psychologist raised by reviewers, including the dropping of one redundant
Psychologist/ 8 (3 UK, 1 US, 3 M, 5 F statement, and the paper was again circulated to all panel
Educational 3 Can, 1 Aus) members for comment. The current paper represents the final
Psychologist agreed version.
Paediatrician 3 (3 UK) 1 M, 2 F
Psychiatrist 1 (1 Can) 1 F
Audiologist 1 (1 NZ) 1 F
Specialist teacher 2 (2 UK) 2 F Results and discussion
Charity 4 (4 UK) 4 F
representative
Round 1
Total 57 57 The response rate by panel members for Round 1
a
Country where panel member was based at start of Delphi was 93%. Appendix S4 shows quantitative and
studies. qualitative responses to the Round 1 statements; a
personalised copy of this report containing these
CATALISE-2 for personal reasons, leaving a panel of 57
data was sent to all panel members, showing how
individuals, whose characteristics are shown in Table 1. Nine their own responses related to the distribution of
panel members had a close relative with impaired language responses from other (anonymised) panel members.
development. The percentage agreement (combining strongly agree
The first two authors (DVMB and MJS), both psychologists with agree) ranged from 30% to 98% for the 16 items,
with considerable experience in the area of childrens language
with a median value of 74%.
problems, acted as moderators: they did not contribute rank-
ings, but agreed on modifications to statements on the basis of KruskalWallis tests were conducted on each
feedback from the panel. The third author (PT) set up the item to test whether agreement was related to
online Delphi, controlled the anonymisation and analysed either geographical location (six countries) or pro-
responses to produce reports for panel members. The fourth fessional status (SLT/P vs. others), using a Bonfer-
(TG), an expert in primary health care who was familiar with
the Delphi method acted, as methodological advisor.
roni-corrected p-value of .001. None of these
comparisons was statistically significant after cor-
rection for multiple comparisons. Given the small
Delphi consensus process sample size, we cannot rule out an effect of these
We started with a set of statements about terminology accom- two factors on ratings, but the analysis offers some
panied by a background document (Appendix S1) that put reassurance that responses did not simply pattern
these in context. These were new statements that were according to professional background or geograph-
different from those in the prior Delphi exercise on criteria, ical location.
though they were informed by issues that arose in that study
(Bishop et al., 2016). Panel members were asked to rate the
statements on a 5-point scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 Round 2
(strongly agree).
Participant responses to Round 1 were collated. The distri- The response rate by panel members for Round 2
bution of responses and associated anonymised comments was 91%. Appendix S5 contains the data that were
were then fed back to all panel members and scrutinised by the
incorporated in a personalised report sent to all
moderators. One difference from our previous Delphi was that
we held a 1-day meeting to present and discuss preliminary panel members for Round 2. The percentage agree-
results from CATALISE-2 before proceeding to Round 2. All ment (combining ratings of strongly agree with
panel members were invited to this, as well as additional agree) ranged from 46% to 98% across items, with
stakeholders. The meeting was attended by the first four a median value of 90%. Of the 21 items, 19 had
authors and 22 of the CATALISE-2 consortium, as well as 23
agreement of 78% or more, which we regarded as
individuals representing a range of fields: eight from speech
and language therapy, eight from psychology, one paediatri- adequate to accept that statement. Items 19 and
cian, two representatives from charities, one expert in special 20, both concerned with terms for subtypes of
educational needs, one geneticist, one general practitioner and language disorder, had 68% and 46% agreement
one psychiatrist. respectively, indicating a need for further revision
On the basis of ratings, qualitative comments and discus- or omission.
sions at the meeting, the two moderators agreed on rewording
of some items and revision of the background document. The
set of items and background document used in Round 2 are Consensus statements
shown in Appendix S2.
There is no agreed criterion for when a Delphi consensus is In this section, we present final statements, with
deemed adequate for an item in the literature, values from supplementary comments that reflect reason-
51% to 80% agreement have been used (Hasson et al., 2000).
ing behind them, based on qualitative comments
We aimed for 75% agreement as a reasonable goal.
After Round 2, the moderators made some further revisions and discussion, supported by references where
to the statements to improve clarity and readability, to take appropriate.

2017 The Authors. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Association for
Child and Adolescent Mental Health.
1070 Dorothy V.M. Bishop et al.
Statement 1. It is important that those working in
the field of childrens language problems use consis-
tent terminology.
Supplementary comment. In Round 2, a version of
this statement was included to orient the panel to
our common goal. Although the terminology we
propose is not novel, its adoption will require many
people to change their practices, which will be
difficult where there is a long-standing preference
for other terms. Nevertheless, panel members were
strongly motivated to achieve a consensus, because
the lack of consistency was recognised as a major
problem for the field.
Statement 2. The term language disorder is
proposed for children who are likely to have language
problems enduring into middle childhood and
beyond, with a significant impact on everyday social
interactions or educational progress.
Supplementary comment. This statement clarifies
that prognosis should be a key factor in the defini-
tion of language disorder; that is, the term should
include those with language problems that lead to
significant functional impairments unlikely to
resolve without specialist help. There is no sharp
dividing line between language disorder and typical
development, but we can use relevant information
from longitudinal studies to help determine progno-
sis (see Statement 3).
Arguments for preferring the term disorder to
impairment included the greater seriousness and
importance associated with the term; consistency
with other neurodevelopmental disorders (autism
spectrum disorder, developmental coordination dis-
order, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder); and
compatibility with the two main diagnostic systems,
DSM-5 (American Psychiatric Association, 2013) and
ICD-11 (Baird, personal communication).
Some panel members expressed concerns that the
term disorder had medical connotations and
placed the problem inside the child, when it might
be contextually dependent. It was thought to have
negative associations for teachers and there were
concerns that such a label could lead to low
expectations. For this reason, our definition explic-
itly excludes children who have limited language
skills because of lack of exposure to the language of
instruction, or are likely to grow out of their
problems. These children often benefit from educa-
tional interventions, and may require monitoring,
but they should not be identified as language
disordered.
Another objection to the term disorder is that
historically it has been interpreted as referring to a
large mismatch between language and nonverbal
ability. This interpretation has been widely adopted
in some circles, but is discredited and is not part of
2017 The Authors. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Association for
J Child Psychol Psychiatr 2017; 58(10): 106880
our definition (Bishop et al., 2016) (see also State-
ment 8).
Statement 3. Research evidence indicates that
predictors of poor prognosis vary with a childs age,
but in general language problems that affect a range
of skills are likely to persist.
Supplementary comment. Prognostic indicators
will vary with age. Our focus here is on what we
know about learning English.
Under 3 years: Prediction of outcome is particu-
larly hard in children under 3 years of age. Many
toddlers who have limited vocabulary at 18
24 months catch up, and despite much research, it
can be difficult to identify which late talkers are
likely to have long-term problems (Reilly et al.,
2010). Children who fail to combine words at
24 months appear to have worse outcomes than
those who do not produce any words at 15 months,
though this is still a far from perfect predictor
(Rudolph & Leonard, 2016). Prognosis is also poorer
for children with comprehension problems, those
who do not communicate via gesture (Ellis & Thal,
2008), or do not imitate body movements (Dohmen,
Bishop, Chiat, & Roy, 2016). Roy and Chiat (2014)
administered a preschool measure of social respon-
siveness and joint attention to 2- to 4-year olds
referred for speech-language therapy, and found it
was predictive of persisting problems, and indicative
of social communication problems at 9 years. A
positive family history of language or literacy prob-
lems is an additional risk factor (Rudolph & Leonard,
2016; Zambrana, Pons, Eadie, & Ystrom, 2014).
Overall, however, the prediction from late language
emergence to subsequent language disorder at
school age is surprisingly weak: in part because
many late talkers catch up but also because some
school-aged children with language disorder were
not late to talk (Snowling, Duff, Nash, & Hulme,
2016; Zambrana et al., 2014).
Three to four years: Prediction improves as chil-
dren grow older; in 4-year olds, the greater the
number of areas of language functioning that is
impaired, the higher the likelihood that the problems
will persist into school age (Bishop & Edmundson,
1987). Note that this finding contradicts the idea
that intervention should be focused on children with
a spiky language profile rather than a more even
pattern of impairment. When individual language
tests are considered, sentence repetition has been
identified as a relatively good marker for predicting
outcomes (Everitt, Hannaford, & Conti-Ramsden,
2013).
In contrast, there is generally a good prognosis for
preschoolers whose problems are restricted to
expressive phonology (Beitchman, Wilson, Brownlie,
Walters et al., 1996; Bishop & Adams, 1990).
Child and Adolescent Mental Health.
doi:10.1111/jcpp.12721
Five years and over: Language problems that are
still evident at 5 years and over are likely to persist
(Stothard, Snowling, Bishop, Chipchase, & Kaplan,
1998). Children who start school with oral language
problems are at risk of reading problems and poor
academic attainment (Bishop & Adams, 1990; Catts,
Fey, Tomblin, & Zhang, 2002; Thompson et al., 2015)
with little evidence that the language gap closes over
time (Rice & Hoffman, 2015). Prognosis appears
particularly poor when receptive language is impaired
(Beitchman, Wilson, Brownlie, Walters, & Lancee,
1996; Clark et al., 2007), and when nonverbal ability
is relatively low (Catts et al., 2002; Johnson, Beitch-
man, & Brownlie, 2010; Rice & Hoffman, 2015).
Family factors: There has been some debate over the
predictive value of family factors. As noted above,
several studies found that a positive family history of
language problems is a predictor (albeit weak) of
persisting problems in late talkers, and family history
is also associated with poor literacy outcomes (Snowling
& Melby-Lervag, 2016). It is less clear whether social
background is independently predictive, once other risk
factors have been taken into account (Botting, Fara-
gher, Simkin, Knox, & Conti-Ramsden, 2001).
For further discussion of the range of language
skills under consideration, see Statement 11.
Statement 4. Some children may have language
needs because their first or home language differs
from the local language, and they have had insuffi-
cient exposure to the language used by the school or
community to be fully fluent in it. This should not be
regarded as language disorder, unless there is
evidence that the child does not have age-
appropriate skills in any language.
Supplementary comment. This statement makes it
clear that a low score on a language test does not
necessarily mean that a child has any kind of
disorder. It is important to consider whether the
child has adequate proficiency in any language. In
general, multilingualism does not lead to language
problems (Paradis, 2016), but where there has been
limited experience with the language used at school,
the child may require extra help (Cattani et al.,
2014). This also applies to hearing-impaired children
whose native language is a signed language. In
practice, however, for many languages, we lack
suitable (normed) assessments (Jordaan, 2008).
Statement 5. Rather than using exclusionary cri-
teria in the definition of language disorder, we draw a
threefold distinction between differentiating condi-
tions, risk factors and co-occurring conditions.
Supplementary comment. Use (and misuse) of
exclusionary factors in definitions of language disor-
der was a major issue leading to dissatisfaction with
2017 The Authors. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Association for
Child and Adolescent Mental Health.
Delphi consensus on terminology for language problems 1071
terminology in this field. Panel members were con-
cerned that, instead of being used for diagnostic
differentiation, exclusionary criteria were sometimes
interpreted as criteria for denying services to children.
On the other hand, grouping together all children
with a language problem, regardless of cause, and
without regard to type of intervention required,
would, in many contexts, be counterproductive.
Statements 610 explain how we draw the distinc-
tion between differentiating conditions, risk factors
and co-occurring conditions.
Statement 6. Differentiating conditions are
biomedical conditions in which language disorder
occurs as part of a more complex pattern of impair-
ments. This may indicate a specific intervention
pathway. We recommend referring to Language
disorder associated with X, where X is the differen-
tiating condition, as specified above.
Supplementary comment. Differentiating condi-
tions include brain injury, acquired epileptic aphasia
in childhood, certain neurodegenerative conditions,
cerebral palsy and oral language limitations associated
with sensori-neural hearing loss (Tomblin et al., 2015)
as well as genetic conditions such as Down syndrome.
We also include here children with autism spectrum
disorder (ASD) and/or intellectual disability (Harris,
2013) because these conditions are commonly linked to
genetic or neurological causes (Fitzgerald et al., 2015;
Shevell, Majnemer, Rosenbaum, & Abrahamowicz,
2001), with the numbers of known aetiology increasing
with advances in genetic methods (Bourgeron, 2015;
Fitzgerald et al., 2015; Shevell et al., 2001).
These are all cases where an association between a
biomedical condition and language disorder is com-
monly seen. In such cases, the child requires sup-
port for the language problems, but the intervention
pathway will need to take into account the distinctive
features of the biomedical condition. It should be
noted, however, that there is little research directly
comparing language intervention approaches across
conditions, so this inference is based on clinical
judgement rather than research evidence.
Statement 7. The term Developmental Language
Disorder (DLD) is proposed to refer to cases of
language disorder with no known differentiating
condition (as defined in Statement 6). Distinguishing
these cases is important when doing research on
aetiology, and is likely also to have implications for
prognosis and intervention.
Supplementary comment. The term Developmen-
tal Language Disorder is consistent with ICD-11
(Baird, personal communication), though our defi-
nition does not include any nonverbal ability criteria.
Developmental in this context refers to the fact
that the condition emerges in the course of develop-
ment, rather than being acquired or associated with
1072 Dorothy V.M. Bishop et al.
a known biomedical cause. Although many panel
members endorsed it, some objections to the term
developmental were encountered. It was noted that
developmental can become less useful, or even
confusing, as individuals grow older. One proposed
solution was to drop the developmental part of the
term in adulthood this is how this issue is typically
handled in the case of (developmental) dyslexia,
where affected adults usually refer to themselves as
dyslexic. Some panel members noted specific mean-
ings of developmental that were not intended: for
example, that this was something that the child
might grow out of, or quite the converse that a
developmental problem meant that the child would
be unable to develop language. It was also suggested
that this term might be hard for parents to under-
stand though similar objections were made for
other alternatives that were offered, namely primary
and specific language disorder.
Statement 8. A child with a language disorder
may have a low level of nonverbal ability. This does
not preclude a diagnosis of DLD.
Supplementary comment. It is important to recog-
nise that language can be selectively impaired in a
child with normal nonverbal ability, but this state-
ment confirms that a large discrepancy between
nonverbal and verbal ability is not required for a
diagnosis of DLD. In practice, this means that
children with low nonverbal ability who do not meet
criteria for intellectual disability (Harris, 2013) can
be included as cases of DLD.
Statement 9. Co-occurring disorders are impair-
ments in cognitive, sensori-motor or behavioural
domains that can co-occur with DLD and may affect
pattern of impairment and response to intervention, but
whose causal relation to language problems is unclear.
These include attentional problems (ADHD), motor
problems (developmental coordination disorder or
DCD), reading and spelling problems (developmental
dyslexia), speech problems, limitations of adaptive
behaviour and/or behavioural, and emotional disorders.
Supplementary comment. The terminology used
for neurodevelopmental disorders can create the
impression that there is a set of distinct conditions,
but the reality is that many children have a mixture
of problems. Indeed, the same problems may be
labelled differently depending on the professional the
child sees. For example, the same child may be
regarded as having DLD by a SLT/P, dyslexia by a
teacher, auditory processing disorder by an audiol-
ogist, or ADHD by a paediatrician. Given our focus
on DLD, our aim with this statement was to make it
clear that presence of another neurodevelopmental
diagnosis does not preclude DLD.
Some panel members noted that a case could be
made for including ASD as a co-occurring disorder,
2017 The Authors. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Association for
J Child Psychol Psychiatr 2017; 58(10): 106880
rather than a differentiating factor. One reason for
keeping it as a differentiating factor is that a
substantial minority of children with ASD have a
clear genetic aetiology: changes in chromosomes,
copy number variants or specific mutations are
estimated as accounting for around 25% of cases
(Bourgeron, 2015), a figure likely to increase with
advances in genetic methods. This is in contrast with
the other neurodevelopmental disorders listed here,
where, although there is evidence for heritability, the
aetiology appears to be complex and multifactorial
(see e.g. Bishop (2015) on dyslexia). In addition,
communication problems are a core diagnostic fea-
ture of ASD, albeit with wide variation in the severity
and nature of the language problems (Williams,
Botting, & Boucher, 2008). Finally, the co-occurring
social and behavioural difficulties suggest the need
for a distinctive intervention approach for ASD.
There was discussion about including auditory
processing disorder (APD) as a co-occurring condi-
tion. This category is controversial (Moore, 2006),
but this should not lead to it being ignored. Children
who are given this diagnosis often have co-occurring
language problems which require expert evaluation
(Dawes & Bishop, 2009; Sharma, Purdy, & Kelly,
2009).
Some panel members noted that relatively pure
cases without co-occurring problems might be more
common in epidemiological than in clinical samples.
However, that this may in part reflect the criteria
used to define cases in epidemiological studies, who
may not be screened for difficulties in domains
beyond language and IQ. A focus on pure cases
has been traditional in research settings, because it
can clarify which features of a disorder are specific to
language. However, this can make it difficult to
generalise research findings to many children seen
in clinical settings, where co-occurring conditions
are more commonly observed. Most panel members
agreed that the term DLD should apply whether or
not co-occurring problems are documented.
Statement 10. Risk factors are biological or envi-
ronmental factors that are statistically associated
with language disorder, but whose causal relation-
ship to the language problem is unclear or partial.
Risk factors do not exclude a diagnosis of DLD.
Supplementary comment. These are factors that
are not robust predictors of individual childrens
language status or outcome, but which are more
common in children with language disorders than
typically developing children (Zubrick, Taylor, &
Christensen, 2015). A systematic review found that
commonly documented risk factors include a family
history of language disorders or dyslexia, being male,
being a younger sibling in a large family and fewer
years of parental education (Rudolph, 2016). Prena-
tal/perinatal problems do not seem to be an impor-
tant risk factor for language disorders (Tomblin,
Child and Adolescent Mental Health.
doi:10.1111/jcpp.12721
Smith, & Zhang, 1997; Whitehouse, Shelton, Ing, &
Newnham, 2014).
It is important to note that associated risk factors
may differ depending on the age of the child, and
whether epidemiological or clinical samples are
considered.
Statement 11. Developmental language disorder
is a heterogeneous category that encompasses a
wide range of problems. Nevertheless, it can be
helpful for clinicians to pinpoint the principal areas
for intervention, and researchers may decide to focus
on children with specific characteristics to define
more homogeneous samples for study. We suggest
here some guidelines for more in-depth analysis of
language problems.
Supplementary comment. The panel members did
not reach good agreement on terminology for sub-
groups, and this may reflect the fact that, although
attempts have been made to develop a classification
of subtypes, these have not in general been validated
as categories that are stable over time (Conti-
Ramsden & Botting, 1999). The traditional distinc-
tion used in DSM, between receptive and expressive
language disorder, is rather gross, and fails to
indicate which aspects of language are proving
problematic. We have therefore opted for an
approach that uses specifiers indicating the princi-
pal dimensions of language difficulty, with a recom-
mendation that assessment focus on identifying
which areas are most impaired. We outline these
briefly below. Note: our focus here is on oral rather
than written language, though reading and writing
are commonly affected in DLD.
Phonology: Phonology is the branch of linguistics
concerned with the organisation of speech sounds
into categories. Different languages use different
articulatory features to signal contrasts in meaning,
and when learning language, the child has to learn
which features to ignore and which to focus on (Kuhl,
2004).
In both research and clinical practice, most
emphasis has been placed on expressive phonolog-
ical problems: difficulties with speech production
that are linguistic in origin, rather than due to motor
impairment or physical abnormality of the articula-
tors. This kind of problem is identified when a child
fails to make a speech distinction between sounds
that are used to contrast meaning in the language
being learned, as when a child says tea rather than
key, substituting/t/for/k/. Phonological errors of
this kind are common in early development, but can
persist and, when numerous, impair intelligibility of
speech. Phonological problems in preschoolers that
are not accompanied by other language problems are
a relatively common reason for referral to a SLT/P
and often respond well to specialist intervention
(Law, Garrett, & Nye, 2003). Thus, they would not
2017 The Authors. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Association for
Child and Adolescent Mental Health.
Delphi consensus on terminology for language problems 1073
meet our criteria for DLD because the prognosis is
good. The more general term Speech Sound Disor-
der (SSD) can be used for such cases: this is an
umbrella term that also includes problems with
speech production that have motor or physical
origins, or involve misarticulations such as a lisp,
where a sound is produced in a distorted way
without losing the contrast with other sounds. The
classification of and terminology for disorders of
speech sound production is a subject of considerable
debate (Waring & Knight, 2013). In practice, even for
those with specialist skills, it is not always easy to
distinguish between phonological disorders and
other types of speech production problem.
Where phonological problems continue beyond
5 years of age it is important to assess the childs
broader language skills, as persisting phonological
difficulties are usually accompanied by other lan-
guage problems and have a poorer prognosis (Bird,
Bishop, & Freeman, 1995; Bishop & Edmundson,
1987; Hayiou-Thomas, Carroll, Leavett, Hulme, &
Snowling, 2017), so would merit a diagnosis of DLD.
Where the child has a mixture of language disorder
and motor or structural problems with speech pro-
duction, a dual diagnosis of DLD with SSD is
appropriate.
Some children have impairment affecting phono-
logical awareness, that is they have difficulty explic-
itly categorising and manipulating the sounds of
language. For instance, they may be unable to
identify the three phonemes constituting the word
cat, or to recognise that cat and car begin with the
same phoneme. Phonological awareness has been
studied extensively in children with reading disabil-
ity, where it is commonly impaired, even in children
with normal speech production. Although phonolog-
ical awareness is often deficient in children with
DLD, we would not diagnose DLD on the basis of
poor phonological awareness alone, because it is a
metalinguistic skill that can be as much a conse-
quence as a cause of literacy problems (Wimmer,
Landerl, Linortner, & Hummer, 1991).
Syntax: A considerable body of research has
focused on documenting syntactic impairments in
children with DLD (Van der Lely, 2005). Expressive
problems with morpho-syntax are of particular the-
oretical interest, and there have been contrasting
attempts to account for them in terms of linguistic
and processing theories (Leonard, 2014). Receptive
language impairments affecting syntax can also
occur, with children failing to interpret meaning
conveyed by grammatical contrasts (Hsu & Bishop,
2014), or showing problems in distinguishing gram-
matical from ungrammatical sentence forms (Rice,
Wexler, & Redmond, 1999).
Word finding and semantics: Some children strug-
gle to produce words despite having some knowledge
of their meaning these are known as word finding
1074 Dorothy V.M. Bishop et al.
difficulties (Messer & Dockrell, 2006). Others have
limited knowledge of word meanings a problem that
comes under the domain of lexical semantics. The
child may be poor at understanding multiple word
meanings and/or use a restricted vocabulary. The
latter problem has been particularly noted in verb
use, where the term general all-purpose verbs has
been coined to describe this phenomenon (Kamba-
naros & Grohmann, 2015; Rice & Bode, 1993).
Semantic impairments also encompass problems
with expressing or understanding meaning from
word combinations; for example, understanding the
scope of the quantifier (all/none) in sentences such
as all the pens are in the boxes or none of the pens
are in the boxes (Katsos, Roqueta, Estevan, &
Cummins, 2011).
Pragmatics/language use: Pragmatic difficulties
affect the appropriate production or comprehension
of language in a given context. They include such
characteristics as providing too much or too little
information to a conversational partner, insensitivity
to social cues in conversation, being over-literal in
comprehension and having difficulty understanding
figurative language (Adams, 2002). Prosodic abnor-
malities, in which cues such as intonation and stress
are used idiosyncratically, so speech sounds robotic,
stereotyped or otherwise atypical to the context, can
also be disruptive to social communication. These
difficulties are hallmarks of the communicative
problems seen in ASD, but are also found in children
who do not meet criteria for autism.
Specific terminology has been proposed for
nonautistic children with pragmatic impairments.
In ICD-11, the term pragmatic language impairment
is used as a descriptive qualifier within DLD. In
DSM-5, a new category of social (pragmatic) com-
munication disorder (SPCD) has been introduced
see Baird and Norbury (2016).
We considered adopting the DSM-5 term in
CATALISE, but decided against this for several
reasons. First, in DSM-5, SPCD is seen as a new
category of neurodevelopmental disorder, whereas
we regard pragmatics as part of language, and hence
pragmatic impairment as a type of language disor-
der. Second, the label SPCD emphasises social
communication, rather than language; in contrast,
our focus is on linguistic problems.
Interventions are being developed that address
linguistic as well as social aspects of such commu-
nication problems (Adams, 2008), and a focus on
pragmatic language as a feature of DLD should help
direct children to appropriate intervention.
Discourse: In contexts such as narrative, children
must learn to process sequences of utterances, so
that they form a coherent whole. Children who lack
this ability may produce sequences of utterances
that appear disconnected and hard to follow. They
may also experience comprehension failure if they
2017 The Authors. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Association for
J Child Psychol Psychiatr 2017; 58(10): 106880
interpret one sentence at a time, without drawing the
necessary inferences to link them together (Karasin-
ski & Weismer, 2010).
Verbal learning and memory: The research litera-
ture has shown that many children with DLD have
problems in retaining sequences of sounds or words
over a short delay (verbal short-term memory),
learning associations between words and meaning,
or learning statistical patterns in sequential input
(Archibald & Gathercole, 2006; Bishop, North, &
Donlan, 1996; Campbell, Dollaghan, Needleman, &
Janosky, 1997; Conti-Ramsden, 2003; Ellis Weis-
mer, 1996; Gillam, Cowan, & Day, 1995; Leonard
2007; Lum, Conti-Ramsden, Page, & Ullman, 2012;
Lum & Zarafa, 2010; Montgomery, 2002). Their
language limitations are different from those due to
poor hearing or auditory discrimination, or to lack of
knowledge due to unfamiliarity with the ambient
language.
Statements 211 are synthesised in Figure 1.
Statement 12. It can be useful to have a super-
ordinate category for policymakers, because the
number of children with specific needs in the domain
of speech, language and communication has
resource implications. The term Speech, Language
and Communication Needs (SLCN), already in use in
educational services in the United Kingdom, is
recommended for this purpose.
Supplementary comment. DLD can be viewed as a
subset within a broad category that covers the whole
range of problems affecting speech, language and
communication, regardless of the type of problem or
putative aetiology.
As shown in Figure 2, this is a very broad category
that encompasses children with DLD (as defined
above), and also includes cases where problems have
a clear physical basis (e.g. dysarthria), or affect
speech fluency or voice. Also included here are
children who have needs due to limited familiarity
with the language used in the classroom, and those
who have communication difficulties as part of other
differentiating conditions.
It is not anticipated that this terminology will be
useful for those doing research on the nature or
causes of language disorders, nor will it be helpful in
explaining a childs difficulties to parents or in
determining a treatment pathway. It could, however,
serve a purpose for those who need to plan services,
who may need to estimate how many children are
likely to require additional support and to bridge
across professional divides (McKean et al., 2017). In
addition, it recognises children who have language
needs that may require extra help or accommoda-
tions in the classroom, even if they do not have a
language disorder. These would include those who
are shown in pathways terminating in a bullet in the
flow chart in Figure 1, that is children with milder
Child and Adolescent Mental Health.
doi:10.1111/jcpp.12721 Delphi consensus on terminology for language problems 1075

Figure 1 Flow chart illustrating pathways to diagnosis of language disorder. Numbers in square brackets refer to Statements in the
Results section

difficulties who should respond well to classroom General discussion

modification, children with hearing loss who use Despite the geographical and professional diversity of
sign language or children who have had limited the panel, there were some points of broad agree-
exposure to the ambient language. ment, as follows: first, some children have language

2017 The Authors. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Association for
Child and Adolescent Mental Health.
1076 Dorothy V.M. Bishop et al.
problems that are severe and persistent enough to
create long-term functional challenges, in daily com-
munication and/or educational attainment; second,
there is no clear dividing line between normality and
disorder; third, within the domain of language,
childrens problems do not neatly segregate into
subtypes, and there may be overlap between prob-
lems in speech, language and communication.
A complicating factor in the nosology of language
disorders is that it has in the past been based on
information from a mixture of different levels of
description: information about the severity and
type of presenting problems with language; co-
occurring problems in nonlanguage domains, such
as nonverbal ability, social interaction or attention;
and putative biological and environmental causes,
such as brain damage, a genetic syndrome or social
disadvantage. This approach implies that the con-
stellation of verbal and nonverbal skills will map
onto natural subtypes with distinct causes, such
that we can use the linguistic, cognitive and
behavioural profile to distinguish the child whose
language problems have environmental or genetic
origins. However, this approach has not worked. As
research has progressed, it has become evident
that causes of language disorders are complex and
multifactorial, and there is no neat one-to-one
mapping between aetiology and phenotype.
In many ways, the results of this consensus
exercise may seem unsurprising. The principal
recommended term, DLD, has a long history in the
field, and is compatible with planned usage in ICD-
11 and close to the term (Language Disorder) used
in DSM-5. It was one of four possible terms
considered in Bishops (2014) original review of
terminology, and already had reasonable represen-
tation in a Google Scholar search. For many of those
working in this area, however, this represents quite
a radical departure from previous practice. The
term Specific Language Impairment, which was the
Figure 2 Venn diagram illustrating relationship between differ-
ent diagnostic terms. DLD is nested within the broader SLCN
category [Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
2017 The Authors. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Association for
J Child Psychol Psychiatr 2017; 58(10): 106880
most frequent in the research literature, was
the subject of substantial disagreement among the
panel, with strong arguments being put forward
both for its retention and its rejection. Ultimately,
the decision was made to reject the term. A major
drawback of this decision is that it creates a
discontinuity with prior literature, which could
affect future meta-analyses and systematic reviews.
On balance, however, it was concluded that the
term specific had connotations that were mislead-
ing and confusing and that, rather than redefining
the term, it would be better to abolish it.
There are other aspects of terminology where the
Delphi process exposed points of disagreement, but
also clarified reasons for these and so allowed us to
identify ways forward. Discussions about the term
disorder revealed principled objections by those
who were concerned about medicalisation of normal
developmental variation. At the same time, concerns
were expressed that other terminology might trivi-
alise the challenges experienced by children who
had persistent problems that interfered with their
social and educational development. The solution
we adopted was to retain disorder but define it in a
way that required functional problems with a poor
prognosis. This may seem a small change, but it
does have major implications. In particular, it
cautions against defining language disorder solely
in terms of statistical cut-offs on language tests.
Note also that we reject any attempt to use discrep-
ancy scores to draw a distinction between disorder
and delay: the term language delay was widely
rejected by our panel members as confusing and
illogical.
The main challenge facing those attempting to use
the concept of language disorder that we advocate is
that there are few valid assessments of functional
language and relatively limited evidence regarding
prognostic indicators. More longitudinal research is
needed, using designs that allow us to predict
individual outcomes rather than just characterise
group averages.
A further case where the Delphi process helped
identify sticking points was the treatment of exclu-
sionary factors. We hope that our distinction
between differentiating conditions, risk factors and
co-occurring disorders will be helpful here. Only
differentiating conditions, which correspond to
biomedical disorders that are clearly associated with
language problems, are distinguished diagnostically
from DLD. Risk factors and co-occurring disorders
are noted but do not preclude a diagnosis of DLD.
This contrasts with prior practice in some quarters,
where a childs social background or presence of
problems in other developmental areas could leave a
child without a diagnosis, and hence without access
to support.
Finally, although it was generally agreed that there
is considerable heterogeneity in children with DLD,
we failed to reach consensus about possible
Child and Adolescent Mental Health.
doi:10.1111/jcpp.12721
terminology for linguistic subtypes of DLD. It is
possible that as research advances the situation may
change, but another possibility is that it is a conse-
quence of the phenomenon of interest: quite simply,
children with DLD do not neatly divide into subtypes
along linguistic lines. It is likely that there is
substantial aetiological as well as linguistic hetero-
geneity, just as has been found for the related
conditions of ASD (Coe, Girirajan, & Eichler, 2012)
and developmental dyslexia (Raskind, Peter,
Richards, Eckert, & Berninger, 2012). In addition,
the boundaries between DLD and other neurodevel-
opmental disorders are not clearcut (Bishop & Rut-
ter, 2008). In our current state of knowledge, we
propose that the appropriate course of action is to
document the heterogeneity rather than attempting
to apply a categorical nosology that fails to accom-
modate a large proportion of children.
An obvious limitation of this study is that we
restricted our focus to the English language because
of the difficulties of devising terms that would be
applicable across different language and cultures.
We recommend the use of the Delphi method to
researchers working with language disorders in
other languages, as a good way to achieve better
consensus.
As with our previous Delphi study, this exercise has
revealed the urgent need for further research on
childrens language disorders, including studies on
intervention, models of service delivery, epidemiology,
prognosis, linguistic profiles and functional limita-
tions over time. We hope that by clarifying terminology
in this area we will also make it easier to raise
awareness of childrens language problems.
Supporting information
Additional Supporting Information may be found in the
online version of this article:
Appendix S1. Background document, with the state-
ments for round 1.
Appendix S2. Background document, with the state-
ments for round 2.
Appendix S3. Relationship between Round 2 state-
ments and final statements reported in Results section.
Appendix S4. Report showing quantitative and quali-
tative responses to Round 1 statements.
Appendix S5. Report showing quantitative and quali-
tative responses to Round 2 statements.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by Wellcome Trust Programme
Grant no. 082498/Z/07/Z. The authors thank Holly
Thornton and Denise Cripps for their help in running the
CATALISE project and Pauline Frizelle, Helen Murrell
and Yvonne Wren for comments on an earlier draft.
CATALISE stands for Criteria and Terminology Applied
to Language Impairments: Synthesising the Evidence.
This paper was handled by the Editor-in-Chief and has
undergone the normal external peer review.
2017 The Authors. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Association for
Child and Adolescent Mental Health.
Delphi consensus on terminology for language problems 1077
Members of the CATALISE-2 consortium include
Catherine Adams (University of Manchester, UK), Lisa
Archibald (University of Western Ontario, Canada),
Gillian Baird (NHS, UK), Ann Bauer (Language
Resource Provision, Vyne Community School), Jude
Bellair (NHS, UK), Christopher Boyle (University of
Exeter), Elizabeth Brownlie (University of Toronto,
Canada), Glenn Carter (NHS, UK), Becky Clark
(RALLI, ClarkSLT, UK), Judy Clegg (University of
Sheffield, UK), Nancy Cohen (University of Toronto,
Canada), Gina Conti-Ramsden (University of Manch-
ester, UK), Julie Dockrell (Institute of Education,
University College London, UK), Janet Dunn (Meath
School, Surrey, UK), Susan Ebbels (Moor House
School and College, Surrey, UK; University College
London), Aoife Gallagher (University of Limerick, Ire-
land), Simon Gibbs (Newcastle University, UK), Emma
Gore-Langton (University College London, UK), Mandy
Grist (ICAN, UK), Mary Hartshorne (ICAN, UK), Alison
Hu neke (Afasic, UK), Marc Joanisse (University of
Western Ontario, Canada), Sally Kedge (University
of Auckland, New Zealand), Thomas Klee (University
of Hong Kong, Hong Kong), Saloni Krishnan (Univer-
sity of Oxford, UK), Linda Lascelles (Afasic, UK),
James Law (Newcastle University, UK), Laurence
Leonard (Purdue University, USA), Stephanie Lynham
(NHS, UK), Elina Mainela Arnold (University of
Toronto, Canada), Narad Mathura (NHS, UK), Elspeth
McCartney (University of Strathclyde, Scotland), Cris-
tina McKean (Newcastle University, UK), Brigid
McNeill (University of Canterbury, New Zealand),
Angela Morgan (Murdoch Childrens Research Insti-
tute, Australia), Carol-Anne Murphy (University of
Limerick, Ireland), Courtenay Norbury (Royal Hol-
loway University of London, UK), Anne OHare
(University of Edinburgh, Scotland), Janis Oram
Cardy (University of Western Ontario, Canada), Ciara
OToole (University College Cork, Ireland), Rhea Paul
(Sacred Heart University, USA), Suzanne Purdy
(University of Auckland, New Zealand), Sean Redmond
(University of Utah, USA), Laida Restrepo (Arizona
State University, USA), Mabel Rice (University of
Kansas, USA), Vicky Slonims (NHS, UK), Pamela
Snow (La Trobe University, Australia), Jane Speake
(NHS, UK), Sarah Spencer (University of Sheffield,
UK), Helen Stringer (Newcastle University, UK), Helen
Tager-Flusberg (Boston University, USA), Rosemary
Tannock (University of Toronto, Canada), Cate Taylor
(University of Western Australia, Australia), Bruce
Tomblin (University of Iowa, USA), Joanne Volden
(University of Alberta, Canada), Marleen Westerveld
(Griffith University, Australia), and Andrew White-
house (Telethon Kids Institute, University of Western
Australia, Australia).
The authors have declared that they have no com-
peting or potential conflicts of interest in relationship to
this article.
Correspondence
Dorothy V.M. Bishop, Department of Experimental
Psychology, University of Oxford, South Parks Road,
Oxford, OX1 3UD, UK; Email: dorothy.bishop@psy.ox.
ac.uk
1078 Dorothy V.M. Bishop et al. J Child Psychol Psychiatr 2017; 58(10): 106880

Key points

Some children have problems with language development that cause significant interference with everyday
life or educational progress. Terminology for describing such problems has been inconsistent, hampering
communication, leading to inequity over access to services and confusion in synthesising research.
A group of experts representing a range of professions and English-speaking countries using the Delphi
method, came to a consensus that Developmental Language Disorder (DLD) is the preferred term for
language problems that are severe enough to interfere with daily life, have a poor prognosis and are not
associated with a clear biomedical aetiology.
We replace the traditional exclusionary criteria in the definition of language disorder, with a threefold
distinction between differentiating conditions, risk factors and co-occurring conditions.
We provide guidelines about terminology in this area that can be used in clinical and research contexts.

Bishop, D.V.M., North, T., & Donlan, C. (1996). Nonword

References
Adams, C. (2002). Practitioner review: The assessment of
language pragmatics. Journal of Child Psychology and
Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 43, 973987.
Adams, C. (2008). Intervention for children with pragmatic
language impairments: Frameworks, evidence and diversity.
In C.F. Norbury, J.B. Tomblin & D.V.M. Bishop (Eds.),
Understanding developmental language disorders. Hove, UK:
Psychology Press.
American Psychiatric Association (2013). Diagnostic and sta-
tistical manual of mental disorders (5th edn). Arlington, VA:
Author.
Archibald, L.M., & Gathercole, S.E. (2006). Short-term and
working memory in specific language impairment. Interna-
tional Journal of Language and Communication Disorders,
41, 675693.
Baird, G., & Norbury, C.F. (2016). Social (pragmatic) commu-
nication disorders and autism spectrum disorder. Archives
of Disease in Childhood, 101, 745751.
Beitchman, J., Wilson, B., Brownlie, E.B., Walters, H., &
Lancee, W. (1996). Long-term consistency in speech/lan-
guage profiles: I. Developmental and academic outcomes.
Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent
Psychiatry, 35, 804814.
Beitchman, J.H., Wilson, B., Brownlie, E.B., Walters, H.,
Inglis, A., & Lancee, W. (1996). Long-term consistency in
speech/language profiles: II. Behavioral, emotional, and
social outcomes. Journal of American Academic Child Ado-
lescent Psychiatry, 35, 815825.
Bird, J., Bishop, D.V.M., & Freeman, N. (1995). Phonological
awareness and literacy development in children with expres-
sive phonological impairments. Journal of Speech and
Hearing Research, 38, 446462.
Bishop, D.V.M. (2010). Which neurodevelopmental disorders
get researched and why? PLoS ONE, 5, e15112.
Bishop, D.V.M. (2014). Ten questions about terminology for
children with unexplained language problems. International
Journal of Language and Communication Disorders, 49, 381
415.
Bishop, D.V.M. (2015). The interface between genetics and
psychology: Lessons from developmental dyslexia. Proceed-
ings of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences, 282,
20143139. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2014.3139.
Bishop, D.V.M., & Adams, C. (1990). A prospective study of the
relationship between specific language impairment, phono-
logical disorders and reading retardation. Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry, 31, 10271050.
Bishop, D.V.M., & Edmundson, A. (1987). Language-impaired
four-year-olds: Distinguishing transient from persistent
impairment. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 52,
156173.
repetition as a behavioural marker for inherited language
impairment: Evidence from a twin study. Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry, 37, 391403.
Bishop, D., & Rutter, M. (2008). Neurodevelopmental disor-
ders: Conceptual approaches. In M. Rutter, D. Bishop, D.
Pine, S. Scott, J. Stevenson, E. Taylor & A. Thapar (Eds.),
Rutters child and adolescent psychiatry (pp. 3241). Oxford,
UK: Blackwell.
Bishop, D.V.M., Snowling, M.J., Thompson, P.A., Greenhalgh,
T., & The CATALISE Consortium. (2016). CATALISE: A
multinational and multidisciplinary Delphi consensus
study. Identifying language impairments in children. PLoS
ONE, 11, e0158753.
Botting, N., Faragher, B., Simkin, Z., Knox, E., & Conti-
Ramsden, G. (2001). Predicting pathways of specific lan-
guage impairment: What differentiates good and poor out-
come? Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 42,
10131020.
Bourgeron, T. (2015). From the genetic architecture to synaptic
plasticity in autism spectrum disorder. Nature Reviews
Neuroscience, 16, 551563.
Campbell, T., Dollaghan, C., Needleman, H., & Janosky, J.
(1997). Reducing bias in language assessment: Processing-
dependent measures. Journal of Speech, Language and
Hearing Research, 40, 519525.
Cattani, A., Abbot-Smith, K., Farag, R., Krott, A., Arreckx, F.,
Dennis, I., & Floccia, C. (2014). How much exposure
to English is necessary for a bilingual toddler to perform like
a monolingual peer in language tests? International Journal
of Language and Communication Disorders, 49, 649671.
Catts, H.W., Fey, M.E., Tomblin, J.B., & Zhang, X. (2002). A
longitudinal investigation of reading outcomes in children
with language impairments. Journal of Speech, Language
and Hearing Research, 45, 11421157.
Clark, A., OHare, A., Watson, J., Cohen, W., Cowie, H., Elton,
R., .. . & Seckl, J. (2007). Severe receptive language disorder
in childhood-familial aspects and long-term outcomes:
Results from a Scottish study. Archives of Disease in
Childhood, 92, 614619.
Coe, B.P., Girirajan, S., & Eichler, E.E. (2012). The genetic
variability and commonality of neurodevelopmental disease.
American Journal of Medical Genetics Part C-Seminars in
Medical Genetics, 160C, 118129.
Conti-Ramsden, G. (2003). Processing and linguistic markers
in young children with specific language impairment. Jour-
nal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research, 46, 1029
1037.
Conti-Ramsden, G., & Botting, N. (1999). Classification of
children with specific language impairment: Longitudinal
considerations. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing
Research, 42, 11951204.

2017 The Authors. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Association for
Child and Adolescent Mental Health.
doi:10.1111/jcpp.12721
Dawes, P., & Bishop, D. (2009). Auditory processing disorder
in relation to developmental disorders of language, commu-
nication and attention: A review and critique. International
Journal of Language and Communication Disorders, 44, 440
465.
Dohmen, A., Bishop, D.V., Chiat, S., & Roy, P. (2016). Body
movement imitation and early language as predictors of
later social communication and language outcomes: A
longitudinal study. Autism and Developmental Language
Impairments, 1. Advanced onlie publication. doi:10.1177/
2396941516656636.
Ebbels, S. (2014). Introducing the SLI debate. International
Journal of Language and Communication Disorders, 49, 377
380.
Ellis Weismer, S. (1996). Capacity limitations in working
memory: The impact on lexical and morphological learning
by children with language impairment. Topics in Language
Disorders, 17, 3344.
Ellis, E.M., & Thal, D.J. (2008). Early language delay and risk
for language impairment. Perspectives on Language Learn-
ing and Education, 15, 93100.
Everitt, A., Hannaford, P., & Conti-Ramsden, G. (2013).
Markers for persistent specific expressive language delay
in 3-4-year-olds. International Journal of Language and
Communication Disorders, 48, 534553.
Fitzgerald, T.W., Gerety, S.S., Jones, W.D., van Kogelenberg,
M., King, D.A., McRae, J., .. . & Deciphering Developmental
Disorders Study. (2015). Large-scale discovery of novel
genetic causes of developmental disorders. Nature, 519,
223228.
Gillam, R.B., Cowan, N., & Day, L.S. (1995). Sequential
memory in children with and without language impairment.
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 38,
393402.
Harris, J.C. (2013). New terminology for mental retardation in
DSM-5 and ICD-11. Current Opinion in Psychiatry, 26, 260
262.
Hasson, F., Keeney, S., & McKenna, H. (2000). Research
guidelines for the Delphi survey technique. Journal of
Advanced Nursing, 32, 10081015.
Hayiou-Thomas, M.E., Carroll, J.M., Leavett, R., Hulme, C., &
Snowling, M.J. (2017). When does speech sound disorder
matter for literacy? The role of disordered speech errors, co-
occurring language impairment and family risk of dyslexia.
Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 58, 197205.
Hsu, H.J., & Bishop, D.V.M. (2014). Training understanding of
reversible sentences: A study comparing language-impaired
children with age-matched and grammar-matched controls.
PeerJ, 2, e656e656.
Johnson, C.J., Beitchman, J.H., & Brownlie, E.B. (2010).
Twenty-year follow-up of children with and without speech-
language impairments: Family, educational, occupational,
and quality of life outcomes. American Journal of Speech
Language Pathology, 19, 5165.
Jordaan, H. (2008). Clinical intervention for bilingual children:
An international survey. Folia Phoniatrica et Logopaedica,
60, 97105.
Kambanaros, M., & Grohmann, K.K. (2015). More general all-
purpose verbs in children with specific language impair-
ment? Evidence from Greek for not fully lexical verbs in
language development. Applied Psycholinguistics, 36, 1029
1057.
Kamhi, A.G. (2004). A memes eye view of speech-language
pathology. Language Speech and Hearing Services in
Schools, 35, 105111.
Karasinski, C., & Weismer, S.E. (2010). Comprehension of
inferences in discourse processing by adolescents with and
without Language Impairment. Journal of Speech Language
and Hearing Research, 53, 12681279.
Katsos, N., Roqueta, C.A., Estevan, R.A., & Cummins, C.
(2011). Are children with Specific Language Impairment
2017 The Authors. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Association for
Child and Adolescent Mental Health.
Delphi consensus on terminology for language problems 1079
competent with the pragmatics and logic of quantification?
Cognition, 119, 4357.
Kuhl, P.K. (2004). Early language acquisition: Cracking
the speech code. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 5, 831843.
Law, J., Garrett, Z., & Nye, C. (2003). Speech and language
therapy interventions for children with primary speech and
language delay or disorder. Cochrane Database of
Systematic Reviews, CD004110.
Leonard, L.B. (2014). Children with specific language impair-
ment (2nd edn). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Leonard, L.B. (2007). Processing limitations and the grammat-
ical profile of children with specific language impairment. In
R. Kail (Ed.), Advances in child development and behavior,
Vol. 35 (pp. 139171). San Diego, CA: Elsevier Academic
Press.
Lum, J.A., Conti-Ramsden, G., Page, D., & Ullman, M.T.
(2012). Working, declarative and procedural memory in
specific language impairment. Cortex, 48, 11381154.
Lum, J.A., & Zarafa, M. (2010). Relationship between verbal
working memory and the SCAN-C in children with specific
language impairment. Language Speech and Hearing Ser-
vices in Schools, 41, 521530.
McKean, C., Law, J., Laing, K., Cockerill, M., Allon-Smith, J.,
McCartney, E., & Forbes, J. (2017). A qualitative case study
in the social capital of co-professional collaborative co-
practice for children with speech, language and commu-
nication needs. International Journal of Language and
Communication Disorders, 52, 514527.
Messer, D., & Dockrell, J.E. (2006). Childrens naming and
word-finding difficulties: Descriptions and explanations.
Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research, 49,
309324.
Montgomery, J.W. (2002). Understanding the language diffi-
culties of children with specific language impairments: Does
verbal working memory matter? American Journal of Speech-
Language Pathology, 11, 7791.
Moore, D.R. (2006). Auditory processing disorder (APD): Def-
inition, diagnosis, neural basis, and intervention. Audiolog-
ical Medicine, 4, 411.
Norbury, C.F., Gooch, D., Wray, C., Baird, G., Charman, T.,
Simonoff, E., .. . & Pickles, A. (2016). The impact of nonver-
bal ability on prevalence and clinical presentation of lan-
guage disorder: Evidence from a population study. Journal
of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 57, 12471257.
Paradis, J. (2016). The development of English as a second
language with and without Specific Language Impairment:
clinical implications. Journal of Speech Language and
Hearing Research, 59, 171182.
Raskind, W.H., Peter, B., Richards, T., Eckert, M.M., &
Berninger, V.W. (2012). The genetics of reading disabilities:
From phenotypes to candidate genes. Frontiers in Psychol-
ogy, 3, 601.
Reilly, S., Wake, M., Ukoumunne, O.C., Bavin, E., Prior, M.,
Cini, E., .. . & Bretherton, L. (2010). Predicting language
outcomes at 4 years of age: Findings from Early Language in
Victoria Study. Pediatrics, 126, e1530e1537.
Rice, M.L., & Bode, J.V. (1993). GAPS in the verb lexicons of
children with specific language impairment. First Language,
13, 113131.
Rice, M.L., & Hoffman, L. (2015). Predicting vocabulary
growth in children with and without Specific Language
Impairment: A longitudinal study from 2;6 to 21 years of
age. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research,
58, 345359.
Rice, M.L., Wexler, K., & Redmond, S.M. (1999). Grammati-
cality judgments of an extended optional infinitive grammar:
Evidence from English-speaking children with specific lan-
guage impairment. Journal of Speech Language and Hearing
Research, 42, 943961.
Roy, P., & Chiat, S. (2014). Developmental pathways of
language and social communication problems in 911 year
1080 Dorothy V.M. Bishop et al.
olds: Unpicking the heterogeneity. Research in Developmen-
tal Disabilities, 35, 25342546.
Rudolph, J. (2016). Case history risk factors for Specific
Language Impairment: A systematic review and meta-
analysis. American Journal of SpeechLanguage Pathology,
(in press).
Rudolph, J.M., & Leonard, L.B. (2016). Early language mile-
stones and Specific Language Impairment. Journal of Early
Intervention, 38, 4158.
Sharma, M., Purdy, S.C., & Kelly, A.S. (2009). Comorbidity of
Auditory Processing, Language, and Reading Disorders.
Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research, 52,
706722.
Shevell, M.I., Majnemer, A., Rosenbaum, P., & Abrahamowicz,
M. (2001). Etiologic determination of childhood developmen-
tal delay. Brain Development, 23, 228235.
Snowling, M.J., Duff, F.J., Nash, H.M., & Hulme, C. (2016).
Language profiles and literacy outcomes of children with
resolving, emerging, or persisting language impairments. Jour-
nal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 57, 13601369.
Snowling, M.J., & Melby-Lervag, M. (2016). Oral language
deficits in familial dyslexia: A meta-analysis and review.
Psychological Bulletin, 142, 498545.
Stothard, S.E., Snowling, M.J., Bishop, D.V.M., Chipchase,
B.B., & Kaplan, C.A. (1998). Language-impaired preschool-
ers a follow-up into adolescence. Journal of Speech, Lan-
guage, and Hearing Research, 41, 407418.
Thompson, P.A., Hulme, C., Nash, H.M., Gooch, D., Hayiou-
Thomas, E., & Snowling, M.J. (2015). Developmental
dyslexia: Predicting individual risk. Journal of Child Psy-
chology and Psychiatry, 56, 976987.
Tomblin, J.B., Harrison, M., Ambrose, S.E., Walker, E.A.,
Oleson, J.J., & Moeller, M.P. (2015). Language outcomes in
young children with mild to severe hearing loss. Ear and
Hearing, 36, 76S91S.
Tomblin, J.B., Records, N.L., Buckwalter, P., Zhang, X., Smith,
E., & OBrien, M. (1997). Prevalence of specific language
impairment in kindergarten children. Journal of Speech and
Hearing Research, 40, 12451260.
2017 The Authors. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Association for
J Child Psychol Psychiatr 2017; 58(10): 106880
Tomblin, J.B., Smith, E., & Zhang, X. (1997). Epidemiology
of specific language impairment: Prenatal and perinatal
risk factors. Journal of Communication Disorders, 30, 325
344.
Van der Lely, H.K.J. (2005). Domain-specific cognitive sys-
tems: Insight from Grammatical-SLI. Trends in Cognitive
Sciences, 9, 5359.
Waring, R., & Knight, R. (2013). How should children with speech
sound disorders be classified? A review and critical evaluation
of current classification systems. International Journal of
Language and Communication Disorders, 48, 2540.
Weindrich, D., Jennen-Steinmetz, C., Laucht, M., Esser, G., &
Schmidt, M.H. (2000). Epidemiology and prognosis of speci-
fic disorders of language and scholastic skills. European
Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 9, 186194.
Whitehouse, A.J.O., Shelton, W.M.R., Ing, C., & Newnham,
J.P. (2014). Prenatal, perinatal, and neonatal risk factors for
Specific Language Impairment: A prospective pregnancy
cohort study. Journal of Speech Language and Hearing
Research, 57, 14181427.
Williams, D., Botting, N., & Boucher, J. (2008). Language in
autism and specific language impairment: Where are the
links? Psychological Bulletin, 134, 944963.
Wimmer, H., Landerl, K., Linortner, R., & Hummer, P. (1991).
The relationship of phonemic awareness to reading acquisi-
tion: More consequence than precondition but still impor-
tant. Cognition, 40, 219249.
Zambrana, I.M., Pons, F., Eadie, P., & Ystrom, E. (2014).
Trajectories of language delay from age 3 to 5: Persistence,
recovery and late onset. International Journal of Language
and Communication Disorders, 49, 304316.
Zubrick, S.R., Taylor, C.L., & Christensen, D. (2015).
Patterns and predictors of language and literacy abilities
410 years in the Longitudinal Study of Australian Chil-
dren. PLoS ONE, 10, e0135612.
Accepted for publication: 22 February 2017
First published online: 30 March 2017
Child and Adolescent Mental Health.